alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.28


 


STANDARD CONSULTING AGREEMENT


Dated November 1, 2008


 


Consultant: General Charles R.
Holland, USAF, Retired


 


TASK
ORDER # FY10-001                                                               Project No. 7435.D01.00


 


A.    Effort: General
marketing support for unmanned air vehicle systems.


 


B.    Task Manager:  Tim Conver


 


C.    Target Performance Period:  January 1,
2010 through December 31, 2012


 


D.    Rates:


 


	
  Authorized Days

  	
   

  	
  Rate

  	
   

  	
  Not To Exceed Cost

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  60
  days

  	
   

  	
  $3,500
  per day

  	
   

  	
  $210,000
  per year

  



 


Payments to be made on a
monthly basis at the rate of $17,500 per month in advance.  Any additional days required by the Task
Manager, beyond the 5 days per month anticipated by the advance payment, will
be invoiced at the daily rate in arrears with expenses and approved by the Task
Manager.


 


Reference shall be made to
Project No. shown above on all invoicing.


 


E.    Expenses:


 


Maximum authorized expenses - As required and
approved in advance.


 


Travel and/or miscellaneous expenses shall be
reimbursed in accordance with current AV standard travel procedures; receipts
shall accompany invoices of $25 or more.


 


No labor or expense costs above those amounts shown
here are to be incurred without the prior written approval of the AV Task
Manager.


 


	
  AeroVironment, Inc.

  	
   

  	
  General Charles R. Holland,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  USAF Retired

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Tim Conver

  	
   

  	
  /s/
  Charles Holland

  
	
  Signature

  	
   

  	
  Signature

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Tim
  Conver

  	
   

  	
  Charles
  Holland

  
	
  Name
  (Print)

  	
   

  	
  Name
  (Print)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  President &
  CEO

  	
   

  	
  12/17/09

  
	
  Title

  	
   

  	
  Date

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  12/17/09

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Jeff Kinsella, Chief Financial Officer of Lamperd Less Lethal Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| Dated: May 31, 2006 |   |              |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------|
|                |   |              |
|                |   |              |
|                |   | /s/ Jeff Kinsella |   |  
 

 

Jeff Kinsella

 

 

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

(Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer)

 

 

Lamperd Less Lethal Inc.

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. and will be retained by Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

 

 

  |
# C_2020175EN.01003601.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/36

---

Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki v EUIPO — Honda Motor (ONDA 1962)

(Case T-548/19) (1)

(2020/C 175/47)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---
CORRECTED ORDER: SEPTEMBER 5, 2013

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

JOSEPH VICK, 

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2013-3073

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA1221100725-B-1. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Joseph Vick moves to vacate the July 16, 2013, order 

dismissing his petition for review and reinstate the petition, which the court also construes as a motion to accept 

his nonconforming informal brief. 

Case: 13-3073 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 09/05/2013
VICK V. TRANSPORTATION 2

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) The court’s mandate is recalled, the July 16, 2013 

dismissal order is vacated, and the petition for review is 

reinstated. 

(3) Mr. Vick’s informal briefs are accepted for filing.

(4) The case shall be calendared in due course. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s19

Case: 13-3073 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 09/05/2013
#### Rogers v. The State.

*Carrying Concealed- Weapons.*

(Decided Dec. 19. 1907.

45 South. 221.)

1. *Indictment; Affidavit: Designation, of Accused.*— It being alleged in the affidavit that the given name of defendant was unknown to affiant, and there being no evidence to show that it was known, the affidavit was sufficient in designating accused by his initials.

2. *Carrying Concealed- Weapons; Evidence.*— Evidence in this case examined and held sufficient to warrant the finding that defendant was guilty.

*76Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Weaver.

W. H. Rogers was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and appeals.

Affirmed.

The affidavit charged that W. I-I. Rogers, whose name is otherwise unknown to affiant, carried a pistol concealed about his person. Three witnesses testified for the state that they saw Rogers on the day it was alleged he carried the pistol concealed, that he was in his shirt sleeves, and that they could not and did not see his pistol until his son attempted to take it out of his hands after he had drawn-it. Several witnesses for the defendant testified that they saw Rogers in his shirt sleeves, and could see the butt of his pistol sticking out of his pocket on the right side. The pants were exhibited, and. showed that, if the pistol was stuck in the pocket perpendicularly, it would not be concealed; but if the end of the pistol was placed in one corner of the pocket, and the butt allowed to rest against the other side, it would be concealed. Defendant was convicted, and fined $100.

Bush & Bush, for appellant.

The affidavit was insuf*ficient.-*— Mornmgstar *v. The*State, 52 Ala. 106. This case can he differentiated from the *Fiehleman*case, 130 Ala.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

McCLELLAN, J.

The affidavit on which the defendant was tried was sufficient in its designation of him by initials; his name being averred to be unknown to the affiant. The plea was not guilty, and there was no evidence adduced tending to refute the averment of the affidavit that his name was *unknown.-*— Winter *v. State.*90 Ala. 637, 8 South. 556. There was testimony intro*77duced upon which the court was warranted in adjudging him guilty.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Anderson, JJ., concur.
# C_2019182EN.01001101.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/11 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — Agenzia delle Dogane v Silcompa SpA (Case C-95/19) (2019/C 182/13) Language of the case: Italian Referring court Corte suprema di cassazione Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: Agenzia delle Dogane Respondent and cross-appellant: Silcompa SpA Question referred Is Article 12(3) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures ( 1 ), as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC ( 2 ), read in conjunction with Article 20 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products ( 3 ), to be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings brought against enforcement measures for the collection of excise duty, the court may examine (and if so within what limits) the question of the place (of actual release for consumption) where the irregularity or offence was actually committed where, as in the present case, the same claim, based on the same export transactions, is made, independently, against the taxable person by both the applicant State and the requested State and, in the requested State, proceedings are pending, contemporaneously, both in respect of the national claim and the action for the collection of duties for the other State, and would the court’s finding in that regard invalidate the request for assistance and consequently all the enforcement measures? ( 1 )  Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties (OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18). ( 2 )  Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17). ( 3 )  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  Exhibit 10.20    
    


 SUMMARY OF THE COMPANY'S NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION  


        Non-employee directors are paid $2,000 for each Board meeting attended in person, $1,000 per Board meeting conducted by
telephone, $1,500 for each Audit Committee meeting attended, whether in person or by phone, $1,000 for each Compensation Committee, Nominating Committee or Special Committee meeting attended in person
and $500 for each Compensation Committee, Nominating Committee or Special Committee meeting conducted by telephone. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee is paid an additional fee of $8,000
per year and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee is paid an additional fee of $4,000 per year for their services as such. All directors are reimbursed for their reasonable expenses related to
attendance at meetings. 


        In
accordance with the Company's 2009 Incentive Plan, any non-employee director first elected to the Board will receive a stock option award of 50,000 shares. Each year, as
of the date of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders, each non-employee director will receive a stock option award of 15,000 shares. The number of shares that may be allocated to be awarded
to non-employee directors cannot exceed 20% of the maximum number of shares authorized under the 2009 Plan. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.20
# C_2020061EN.01003501.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline)

(Case T-69/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 61/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2018 (Case R 412/2018-1) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
# C_2019139EN.01009501.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/95

---

Action brought on 19 February 2019 — Bacardi v EUIPO — La Fée (ANGEL’S ENVY)

(Case T-115/19)

(2019/C 139/95)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bacardi Co. Ltd (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Fée LLP (Hertfordahire, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ANGEL’S ENVY — Application for registration No 13 896 551

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 338/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition against the registration of the word-device mark No. 13 896 551 for goods in class 33; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition against the registration of the word-device mark No. 13 896 551 for goods in class 33;

| — | transmit the judgment of the General Court of the CJEU to EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

transmit the judgment of the General Court of the CJEU to EUIPO;

| — | order La Feè LLP to pay all costs and expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order La Feè LLP to pay all costs and expenses.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 27(2) to (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(2) to (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Nikiyah S. Blackman, Respondent, v Hit Factory et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[943 NYS2d 485]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered August 19, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion for enforcement of a settlement agreement to the extent of authorizing them to serve *474plaintiff with certain settlement documents with a request that they be executed, and denied their request for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At the evidentiary hearing ordered by the motion court, plaintiff did not establish that she lacked the capacity to enter into the stipulation of settlement that she initialed on October 13, 2004. Even assuming that she lacked capacity to enter into the stipulation, under the facts presented here, she would still be bound by its terms, given that the document was signed, in her presence, by her counsel, who had apparent authority to enter into the agreement *(see Hallock v State of New York,*64 NY2d 224, 230-232 [1984]). Nor is there any evidence, other than her own testimony, which the motion court implicitly discounted, that plaintiff made any contemporaneous objection to the stipulation, or engaged in any behavior manifesting a lack of capacity *(see id.*at 231; *Privin v Landolfi,*191 AD2d 485 [1993]).

We perceive no basis for disturbing the equitable remedy which the motion court fashioned here in its discretion *(see Matter of Gerges v Koch,*62 NY2d 84, 94-95 [1984]; *Town of Caroga v Herms,*62 AD3d 1121, 1125 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 708 [2009]). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the motion court’s determination that no award of attorneys’ fees is warranted at this time *(see 542 Holding Corp. v Prince Fashions, Inc.,*57 AD3d 414, 416 [2008]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Román, JJ.
# C_2019363EN.01001601.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/16

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Giorgio Armani v EUIPO — Invicta Watch Company of America (GLYCINE)

(Case T-209/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 363/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: J. Rether and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. (Hollywood, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 (Case R 578/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Giorgio Armani and Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Giorgio Armani SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Giorgio Armani SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---
Exhibit 10.1

Confidential

LOGO

Interoffice Memorandum



|      |  |                                                          
|----- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|To:   |  | Personnel File                                           
|      | 
|From: |  | Frank M. Armstrong, President and Chief Executive Officer
|      | 
|Date: |  | January 24, 2007                                         
|      | 
|Re:   |  | Amendment to Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2006



---

I, Frank M. Armstrong, (the Executive) signed an Employment Agreement (the Agreement) with my employer, CuraGen Corporation (the Company), on or about September 1, 2006, providing that the
Executives initial base salary shall be subject to increases by the Board of Directors, which shall review the salary periodically. Therefore, pursuant to the minutes of the January 24, 2007, Meeting of the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors, the Executives 2007 base salary will be adjusted to $519,400 per year, payable in bi-weekly installments.

Unless explicitly
changed in the Addendum dated January 24, 2007, all other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



|                           |  | 
|-------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Frank M. Armstrong, MD |  | 
|Frank M. Armstrong, MD     |  | 
|                           | 
|/s/ Robert E. Patricelli   |  | 
|Robert E. Patricelli       |  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony C., Appellant.

Adjudication unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from adjudication of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—youthful offender.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.